Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 24652 of 2016 Petitioner :- Raghuveer Dayal Respondent :- D.D.C. And 11 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramgee Prasad,Mani Shanker Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brij Kumar Yadav,Vishwanath Pandey
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
List has been revised. The counsel for the petitioner is present. No one appears for the respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 6.8.2015 passed by respondent no.3, order dated 14.9.2015 passed by respondent no.2 and order dated 5.3.2016 passed by respondent no.1.
It is evident from the records that Plot No.223 was the original holding of the petitioner while Plot No.222 was the original holding of the respondents. During the consolidation operation in the village, the petitioner and the respondents were allotted Chaks by the Consolidation Officer on their original holdings and the said allotment of Chaks has been affirmed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation in appeal and revision filed by the petitioner.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been given complete share on his original holding adjacent to the road and therefore, the orders passed by the consolidation authorities are liable to be set aside.
It is evident from the records that the petitioner has been allotted 90% of his share in Plot No.223 and no document has been annexed with the writ petition to rebut the aforesaid finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In his order dated 5.3.2016, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that in case Chaks are carved out in the manner prayed by the petitioner, the shapes of the chak allotted to the petitioner and respondent would become irregular violating the principle of rectangulation as provided under Section 19 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and further the petitioner also has a road adjacent to Plot No.223.
There is no illegality in the orders passed by the consolidation authorities which are based on material available on record and there is no violation of any principle prescribed in Section 19 of the U.P Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953. The consolidation authorities have given valid reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
The matter relates to allotment of Chak and there can be no allotment of Chaks which would fully satisfy all the tenure holders in the Village.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 IB